Case

Leadership has traditionally been described in terms of the traits of leaders or as a particular behavioural style. Occasionally, the need for a situation-dependent leadership style has been suggested. It is more fruitful to see leadership as an act or set of acts within a social process. This decoupling of leadership from a premature marriage with what a particular designated (or self-appointed) person does allows for a more open view. It also encourages one to pay attention to the meanings of all the people involved. It is then far from always clear if a particular act performed by a manager - or someone else - is productively described as leadership or not.

I will now present a glimpse of an event - a ritual - in a division of a Swedish industrial company (Alvesson & Bjrkman, 1992), with relevance for the interpretation of leadership. This organization is primarily populated by engineers or marketing people with an engineering background. Every third month there is an informational meeting for the 40 or so managers (here broadly defined, including marketing personnel and supervisors) in the division. When Gustaf, the head of division, started with these information meetings not all the 40 or so people invited appeared and those who came sat rather widely distributed in a meeting room capable of hosting a larger group. Gustaf then emphasized that the meeting was obligatory ('please inform me if you can't attend', he wrote in the calls for the meeting) and asked people to take the front rows, thus sitting close to each other.

At the time of our study no such encouragement is necessary. Most people attend and they take seats close to each other. Whether this reflects a new 'genuine' orientation or is a matter of behavioural compliance is difficult to say. All those present are men, with the exception of the female personnel manager and the secretary. Gustaf, the divisional manager, stands at the door and welcomes all the participants. During the introductory speech he gives a 'soft' impression, appears friendly and rather informal. The agenda is characterized by several speakers and Gustaf adopts a relatively low profile. He could have done some of the presentations

himself, and on the original agenda his name appeared as speaker on some themes, but then he chose to let someone else take the centre stage. The atmosphere is informal and friendly. Sometimes Gustaf jokes with people and sometimes he is the object of their jokes. When the controller presents the results he uses Gustaf's picture aimed at showing changes in results on different markets in a pedagogical manner: 'Now we go over to Gustaf's own picture, the quantum physics diagram.' (Everybody laughs.)

After some comments, Gustaf asks the audience:

'Everybody laughs at me and this diagram. Do you find it unclear? I think it is rather revealing.' Some people reply:

'At first glance it looks quite difficult (laughter), but when you have looked at it some time .... It is easier for me as I am colour blind.' (More laughter.)

During the break, Gustaf serves coffee together with his secretary and the personnel manager. The overall impression from the meeting is one of community rather than formalism and hierarchy.

An interesting question is whether this is a case of leadership or not. It could be argued that this is the opposite of 'real leadership'. Gustaf is abdicating from a position as a leader, refraining from using the situation in order to exercise active influence on his subordinates. All the jokes about him and his diagram can be seen as undermining his authority and weakening the asymmetry which by definition characterizes the relationship between leader and subordinates. The situation is mainly characterized by various people providing information about results and different problems that the company is working with. It thus has the character of information giving, rather than an opportunity for the leader, through rhetorical skills and charismatic appearance, to frame the minds, values and feelings of followers. In this sense one could say that Gustaf expresses 'anti-leadership' more than what is conventionally, and perhaps stereotypically, seen as leadership with a capital 'L'.

But it is also possible to view the set-up and Gustaf's behaviour as fully in line with leadership as defined by Yukl. Gustaf is downplaying hierarchy, putting the emphasis on community, an open climate and the free flow of communication. He also encourages other people by asking them to be responsible for presentations, which can be seen as strengthening their status, work identities and motivation. By placing himself more as a host than an authority figure he sets the tone for others. Gustaf exercised cultural influence through delegation, emphasizing the value of everybody, underscoring social values, etc. The information meeting thus expresses Gustaf's agenda of building an integrated organization through cultural means in which the traditional scepticism and antagonism between different functions - in particular marketing and production - can be overcome and a shared divisional identity and organizational community be developed.

An understanding of leadership then calls for consideration of not only the behaviour involved - through just observing what takes place at face value it may well be seen as the absence of leadership - but also the ideas and intentions. Through grasping the logic of the manifested social processes, we may see this as a case of leadership. But we also need to consider the reactions of those that Gustaf tries to influence. Intentions and behaviour are neither sufficient nor even the most vital components - the interpretation of and meanings of subordinates are really what matters, as these are basic for the responses to and effects of leadership acts.

In the case of Gustaf, actions like the information meeting appeared to be positively responded to by his subordinates. People praised his social attitude and interest in trying to create shared orientations among the entire division. But whether this had any deeper impact and led to significant effects on organizational performances is of course very difficult to tell. This case illustrates the need to take not only the actions of the leader into account, but also the ideas and intentions behind them, and in particular the interpretations and reactions of subordinates. Understanding leadership calls for the consideration of social process and cultural context; that is, descriptions must be relatively rich or thick. The case also illustrates that what can be seen as leadership is an open issue. In informal, everyday settings it is even more uncertain what should productively be seen as leadership. In the case of Gustaf, the manager-structured set-up and his senior position make the leadership label appear appropriate, but it is well worth considering whether the use of the 'absence' of high-profiled leadership simultaneously can be understood as anti-leadership or as a particular version of leadership. The trick of sensitively grasping what goes on may sometimes be best accomplished by transgressing established vocabularies or at least by showing the uncertainties and tensions involved.

• Read the attached article. Referencing what we have discussed in class, what type of leadership does Gustaf practice; and what principle is the author trying to establish?
• Can Gustaf's leadership approach work in a company in Nigeria? Explain why it would or would not work.